Commentary Magazine


Topic: Mike McMahon

Hard to Find the Final Votes

We are down to handfuls of House Democrats who will decide the fate of ObamaCare. One usually expects in these situations that House leaders have enough enticements and threats to garner the last few votes. But in this case, we’re talking about members in swing districts, the ones most at risk in November and the most wary of the Pelosi-Obama-Reid call to pass the liberals’ decades-old pipe dream of national health care. As John Fund notes, some of the usual tactics fall on deaf ears:

New York Democrat Mike McMahon was visited by a top SEIU official and told that he won’t get union funding if he votes “no.” Indeed, union representatives hinted they might look for a primary challenger or third-party candidate to run in his Staten Island district.

Such threats may not be as effective as liberal interest groups hope. Mr. McMahon’s district voted for John McCain last year and Democrats know any last-minute primary challenger to Mr. McMahon would likely lose to a Republican in the fall, even if he or she succeeded in toppling the incumbent in the Democratic primary. Threats by MoveOn.org and SEIU against many incumbents are also less than believable simply because the filing deadline to mount primary challenges has already passed for more than 40% of House seats. Meanwhile, the debate over health care has dragged on so long that many Democratic members are now clearly more worried about the impact on general election voters than on the party faithful.

So for now, the various Democratic whip counts look to be short of a majority and perilously close to the maximum number of defections. After all, the Democratic leadership is short on both substantive (do any wavering Democrats believe it’s deficit neutral?) and political arguments (these are the members with many Republicans and angry independents ready to pounce). This isn’t to say Pelosi can’t get there, but it sure is proving harder than many imagined when this all began. But then again, the bill is much worse than many imagined.

We are down to handfuls of House Democrats who will decide the fate of ObamaCare. One usually expects in these situations that House leaders have enough enticements and threats to garner the last few votes. But in this case, we’re talking about members in swing districts, the ones most at risk in November and the most wary of the Pelosi-Obama-Reid call to pass the liberals’ decades-old pipe dream of national health care. As John Fund notes, some of the usual tactics fall on deaf ears:

New York Democrat Mike McMahon was visited by a top SEIU official and told that he won’t get union funding if he votes “no.” Indeed, union representatives hinted they might look for a primary challenger or third-party candidate to run in his Staten Island district.

Such threats may not be as effective as liberal interest groups hope. Mr. McMahon’s district voted for John McCain last year and Democrats know any last-minute primary challenger to Mr. McMahon would likely lose to a Republican in the fall, even if he or she succeeded in toppling the incumbent in the Democratic primary. Threats by MoveOn.org and SEIU against many incumbents are also less than believable simply because the filing deadline to mount primary challenges has already passed for more than 40% of House seats. Meanwhile, the debate over health care has dragged on so long that many Democratic members are now clearly more worried about the impact on general election voters than on the party faithful.

So for now, the various Democratic whip counts look to be short of a majority and perilously close to the maximum number of defections. After all, the Democratic leadership is short on both substantive (do any wavering Democrats believe it’s deficit neutral?) and political arguments (these are the members with many Republicans and angry independents ready to pounce). This isn’t to say Pelosi can’t get there, but it sure is proving harder than many imagined when this all began. But then again, the bill is much worse than many imagined.

Read Less

The End of the “Not Bush” Experiment?

The Hill reports:

Rep. Pete King (N.Y.), the ranking Republican on the Homeland Security Committee, said he would attempt to add language barring any money from being spent on trying alleged terrorists in civilian courts to the intelligence authorization bill. . . In the next week, King said, he will be fine-tuning the language to make it germane to the intelligence authorization bill. If he is unsuccessful or it doesn’t pass, he vowed to continue to offer the bill throughout the rest of the year whenever he sees an opportunity.

This seems like a fine idea. If, as Obama keeps declaring, we got “off track” during the Bush years (oh, except for the parts which the Obami claim were identical to what Obama is now doing) and betrayed our “values,” he should welcome a robust debate about the wisdom of trying jihadists in civilian courtrooms. Granted, a New York venue seems like a nonstarter now, but Eric Holder and Obama insist that that civilian trials are the way to go. They tell us that it’s going to prove (to whom?) the wonders of the American judicial system — before they absolutely, positively guarantee a conviction. (And such reasoning requires one to put aside, I suppose, that military tribunals authorized by Congress are part of that judicial system.)

The Obami must sense they are on thin ice. Sens. Pat Leahy and Dianne Feinstein sent a letter to the White House (I’m sure it was requested) singing the praises of federal court trials for terrorists. But there is a groundswell of opposition building:

King and Rep. Frank Wolf (Va.), the top Republican on the subcommittee that funds the Justice Department, are leading the House drive to prevent any funds from being spent on prosecuting Guantanamo Bay detainees in U.S. federal courts. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) is leading a similar legislative initiative in the Senate. Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.), who is in a tight reelection race, signed on as a co-sponsor to Graham’s bill. . . . Last week, two House Democrats, Reps. Jason Altmire (Pa.) and Mike McMahon (N.Y.), jumped onto King and Wolf’s bill as co-sponsors, a sign that support in the Democratic Caucus for Obama’s detainee policies has deteriorated in recent weeks amid growing concern about how voters will view the White House’s national security policies at the polls in November

The public in survey after survey opposes the criminal-justice model Obama still clings to. The president will have the chance to make his pitch and convince the public of the merits of his view. Indeed, snatching the decision-making process away from the hapless Eric Holder, who botched the New York trial roll-out, Obama declares that he will insert himself in the process and decide the locale of the KSM trial.

But I suspect the whole experiment is unraveling as those on the ballot this year sense that there is no appetite for this sort of thing. Even Holder seemed to leave the door open to trying KSM in a military tribunal. (“‘At the end of the day, wherever this case is tried, in whatever forum, what we have to ensure is that it’s done as transparently as possible and with adherence to all the rules,’ Holder said. ‘If we do that, I’m not sure the location or even the forum is as important as what the world sees in that proceeding.’”)

Well, perhaps it was the “not Bush” approach to terrorism that was seriously off track and flew in the face of the values and common sense of the American people. If Congress is stepping up to the plate and the administration is groping for an exit plan, we may finally arrive at a rational approach to fighting Islamic fascists — one that looks a whole lot like the Bush approach.

The Hill reports:

Rep. Pete King (N.Y.), the ranking Republican on the Homeland Security Committee, said he would attempt to add language barring any money from being spent on trying alleged terrorists in civilian courts to the intelligence authorization bill. . . In the next week, King said, he will be fine-tuning the language to make it germane to the intelligence authorization bill. If he is unsuccessful or it doesn’t pass, he vowed to continue to offer the bill throughout the rest of the year whenever he sees an opportunity.

This seems like a fine idea. If, as Obama keeps declaring, we got “off track” during the Bush years (oh, except for the parts which the Obami claim were identical to what Obama is now doing) and betrayed our “values,” he should welcome a robust debate about the wisdom of trying jihadists in civilian courtrooms. Granted, a New York venue seems like a nonstarter now, but Eric Holder and Obama insist that that civilian trials are the way to go. They tell us that it’s going to prove (to whom?) the wonders of the American judicial system — before they absolutely, positively guarantee a conviction. (And such reasoning requires one to put aside, I suppose, that military tribunals authorized by Congress are part of that judicial system.)

The Obami must sense they are on thin ice. Sens. Pat Leahy and Dianne Feinstein sent a letter to the White House (I’m sure it was requested) singing the praises of federal court trials for terrorists. But there is a groundswell of opposition building:

King and Rep. Frank Wolf (Va.), the top Republican on the subcommittee that funds the Justice Department, are leading the House drive to prevent any funds from being spent on prosecuting Guantanamo Bay detainees in U.S. federal courts. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) is leading a similar legislative initiative in the Senate. Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.), who is in a tight reelection race, signed on as a co-sponsor to Graham’s bill. . . . Last week, two House Democrats, Reps. Jason Altmire (Pa.) and Mike McMahon (N.Y.), jumped onto King and Wolf’s bill as co-sponsors, a sign that support in the Democratic Caucus for Obama’s detainee policies has deteriorated in recent weeks amid growing concern about how voters will view the White House’s national security policies at the polls in November

The public in survey after survey opposes the criminal-justice model Obama still clings to. The president will have the chance to make his pitch and convince the public of the merits of his view. Indeed, snatching the decision-making process away from the hapless Eric Holder, who botched the New York trial roll-out, Obama declares that he will insert himself in the process and decide the locale of the KSM trial.

But I suspect the whole experiment is unraveling as those on the ballot this year sense that there is no appetite for this sort of thing. Even Holder seemed to leave the door open to trying KSM in a military tribunal. (“‘At the end of the day, wherever this case is tried, in whatever forum, what we have to ensure is that it’s done as transparently as possible and with adherence to all the rules,’ Holder said. ‘If we do that, I’m not sure the location or even the forum is as important as what the world sees in that proceeding.’”)

Well, perhaps it was the “not Bush” approach to terrorism that was seriously off track and flew in the face of the values and common sense of the American people. If Congress is stepping up to the plate and the administration is groping for an exit plan, we may finally arrive at a rational approach to fighting Islamic fascists — one that looks a whole lot like the Bush approach.

Read Less

In the Crossfire

You get the sense Obama is in quite a fix. Politico runs two stories headlined: “Dems grouse as Obama tacks to center” and “Big bang takes toll on moderates.” So on one hand, liberals are annoyed with Obama’s promising a spending freeze (albeit, an itty-bitty one). And they are also peeved about Obama’s proposal to give businesses tax credits. But then the moderates are freaking out:

If the first year of Obama’s term was dominated by the so-called Big Bang push for enormous, politically risky initiatives — the stimulus, cap and trade and health care — Year Two is fast shaping up to be year of small ball, retrenchment and backlash.

“I’ve always maintained that I thought that they were doing too much, too fast,” said Rep. Mike McMahon (D-N.Y.), an endangered freshman who represents a Staten Island district long occupied by Republicans.

“Without question, the biggest complaint I’m hearing from constituents is that there were too many things being tackled all at once, and they didn’t have time to understand and digest all of them,” he added.

Democrats are realizing that they have angered a great many voters with scary big-government proposals but have little to show for it. And Blue Dog Rep. Dennis Cardoza would like to turn back the clock: “Everyone was talking about spending capital — now I think we wish we had some of that capital back. You build confidence by passing legislation that people understand and work that way. I still believe in the president, but you can’t be everything to all folks.” It seems suddenly Obama isn’t offering much of anything to anyone within his party.

Part of the problem stems from the lack of direction given to Congress. Al Franken finds nothing funny in the Obami’s meandering. He was reported to have ripped into David Axelrod “for the administration’s failure to provide clarity or direction on health care and other big bills.” Perhaps if Democrats’ own congressional leaders were more effective, the lack of direction from the White House would not be so disconcerting. But Democrats have seen what happens when Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are left to their own devices. You can understand why they are miffed that the White House hasn’t left a legislative road map for them to follow.

And part of the issue is fear that the leader of their party is playing into a destructive and familiar narrative, namely that the Democrats are the “tax-and-spend” and “weak on national security” party. On both, you see nervous Democrats are beginning to push back on everything from anti-terror policies to the new budget.

Obama and his congressional allies may well get their act together. But they’d better hurry. There are not that many months left to legislate and come up with something that incumbents can credibly tout to voters. And worse, persistent infighting and dissention will only depress their base further and convince ordinary voters these people simply aren’t up to the task of governing.

You get the sense Obama is in quite a fix. Politico runs two stories headlined: “Dems grouse as Obama tacks to center” and “Big bang takes toll on moderates.” So on one hand, liberals are annoyed with Obama’s promising a spending freeze (albeit, an itty-bitty one). And they are also peeved about Obama’s proposal to give businesses tax credits. But then the moderates are freaking out:

If the first year of Obama’s term was dominated by the so-called Big Bang push for enormous, politically risky initiatives — the stimulus, cap and trade and health care — Year Two is fast shaping up to be year of small ball, retrenchment and backlash.

“I’ve always maintained that I thought that they were doing too much, too fast,” said Rep. Mike McMahon (D-N.Y.), an endangered freshman who represents a Staten Island district long occupied by Republicans.

“Without question, the biggest complaint I’m hearing from constituents is that there were too many things being tackled all at once, and they didn’t have time to understand and digest all of them,” he added.

Democrats are realizing that they have angered a great many voters with scary big-government proposals but have little to show for it. And Blue Dog Rep. Dennis Cardoza would like to turn back the clock: “Everyone was talking about spending capital — now I think we wish we had some of that capital back. You build confidence by passing legislation that people understand and work that way. I still believe in the president, but you can’t be everything to all folks.” It seems suddenly Obama isn’t offering much of anything to anyone within his party.

Part of the problem stems from the lack of direction given to Congress. Al Franken finds nothing funny in the Obami’s meandering. He was reported to have ripped into David Axelrod “for the administration’s failure to provide clarity or direction on health care and other big bills.” Perhaps if Democrats’ own congressional leaders were more effective, the lack of direction from the White House would not be so disconcerting. But Democrats have seen what happens when Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are left to their own devices. You can understand why they are miffed that the White House hasn’t left a legislative road map for them to follow.

And part of the issue is fear that the leader of their party is playing into a destructive and familiar narrative, namely that the Democrats are the “tax-and-spend” and “weak on national security” party. On both, you see nervous Democrats are beginning to push back on everything from anti-terror policies to the new budget.

Obama and his congressional allies may well get their act together. But they’d better hurry. There are not that many months left to legislate and come up with something that incumbents can credibly tout to voters. And worse, persistent infighting and dissention will only depress their base further and convince ordinary voters these people simply aren’t up to the task of governing.

Read Less




Welcome to Commentary Magazine.
We hope you enjoy your visit.
As a visitor to our site, you are allowed 8 free articles this month.
This is your first of 8 free articles.

If you are already a digital subscriber, log in here »

Print subscriber? For free access to the website and iPad, register here »

To subscribe, click here to see our subscription offers »

Please note this is an advertisement skip this ad
Clearly, you have a passion for ideas.
Subscribe today for unlimited digital access to the publication that shapes the minds of the people who shape our world.
Get for just
YOU HAVE READ OF 8 FREE ARTICLES THIS MONTH.
FOR JUST
YOU HAVE READ OF 8 FREE ARTICLES THIS MONTH.
FOR JUST
Welcome to Commentary Magazine.
We hope you enjoy your visit.
As a visitor, you are allowed 8 free articles.
This is your first article.
You have read of 8 free articles this month.
YOU HAVE READ 8 OF 8
FREE ARTICLES THIS MONTH.
for full access to
CommentaryMagazine.com
INCLUDES FULL ACCESS TO:
Digital subscriber?
Print subscriber? Get free access »
Call to subscribe: 1-800-829-6270
You can also subscribe
on your computer at
CommentaryMagazine.com.
LOG IN WITH YOUR
COMMENTARY MAGAZINE ID
Don't have a CommentaryMagazine.com log in?
CREATE A COMMENTARY
LOG IN ID
Enter you email address and password below. A confirmation email will be sent to the email address that you provide.